Yes, I see how it works. Sorry that you still don't.

But, that will inevitably be corrected. Just look at your watch, see if you see a trend there.

Just a little something I Know.

Meanwhile, evolution kills 100% of naturalists, and the only thing that actually survives is information.

So, you may at least want to leave a light on for, say, Platonic ideal Forms. Or the robots' software.

Your statement regarding Protestant Sola Scriptura versus Catholic "scripture and Holy Tradition" is not relevant to this issue. The distinction between these two is always a matter of nuanced interpretation of the precise intent of the prophets and apostles, and this -always- ends up with argument centered around scriptural support. Though you may wish to create a false dichotomy here, it is -never- the case that one can blatantly formulate a position in clear contradiction to, or utterly unsupported by, scripture. Catholicism knows Galatians 1:8 as well as Protestantism does, and I'll happily challenge to provide an example of an introduced doctrine of Catholicism -ever- for which there is -no- corresponding scriptural support. It does not happen, and cannot happen there any more than in Protestantism. A denomination or sect that attempted to make up new doctrine whole-cloth or forward a stance in contradiction to scripture would be simply found invalid, as conceptual coherence demands. You are conflating nuanced distinction in interpretation, i.e. disagreement on application, with outright invention lacking any documentary basis.

That is the situation with vaccines. There is -no- scriptural support, direct, or indirect in a manner that could be seen as applicable, which speaks against vaccines.

You are by verbal shell-game saying Protestants say "scripture" and Catholics say "scripture and Tradition" and then implicitly saying "but it's really just Tradition, and Tradition is free to contradict established scripture". No, no denomination has ever gotten away with that, and Catholicism has never tried. This scenario does not exist as a matter of actuality, and so is irrelevant to the case at hand.

Feel free to discuss with yourself. I already know.

You could go for Round 2 of your stupid escalation though, and similarly assert because you don't know, that means I don't know. I'd suggest trying to learn to distinguish better between yourself and others, as it's disturbingly indicative of mental illness.

Well, yeah, obviously I won't be following Immermanism, for obvious reasons. Foremost being what you've pulled out of your ass here.

I guess you doing it means somebody else is doing it, rather than the obvious fact it's only you doing it, right?

Correction: -Including- religion, there is no reason to believe that vaccines cause any harm.

Feel free to cite any anti-vaccine scripture. Let me save you some time. It doesn't exist.

You're wandering pretty far afield from what I actually said. I said that people who sociopathically use the mechanisms of control given them by their government positions, and likewise use these positions to make up rules for themselves that extends their control and manipulation of the public and which exempt themselves from any real penalties for any of their actions, fully knowingly and making extensive effort to systematically do precisely that, should be held accountable.

And now you tell me I'm talking about mentally handicapped people and making them accountable. Ah, no. Whoever you think you're talking to, it isn't me.

So, people not being punished forever is a weird fantasy, and really they will, as a matter of what's actually true? You need to review your ideas here for internal coherence.

So again, at the time of that writing, or later in his life, say on his deathbed, when he came very close to recanting the entire Reformation, or now?

But we still need to go back to how I can address your question of "better", so again it would clarify your standards by reference to your worldview. Right now you are saying that my religion is incorrect, which we know by reference to its moral axioms, with the religion as the only source of justification of them we've put on the table.

To summarize, your stance is that my view is untrue, which we know because it is true.

So, again, what is your derivation of the basis of your implied moral criticism? Since context-dropping would be wholly invalid on your part, and Christians killing all the Jews would be fine according to Darwinian naturalism, Jews killing all the Christians would be equally fine according to it, both of them killing all the atheists would be perfectly fine as well, it's simply a matter that some DNA survived and some did not, case closed, what else do you mean by "better"?

You'll have to define your term, because right now you're doing an Argument from a Void.

At the time of that writing, later in his life, or now?

The truth is compulsory. Alignment with it is unpleasant to the degree one has been misaligned.

As for the specifics, though, I leave that to the one who can address it with a degree of precision and thoroughness I cannot.

Working on a segue to the supposed "Problem of Evil"?

Occasionally, in terms of direct intervention, but primarily this is left to us to implement, as a function of retaining our free will and avoiding making us and our actions morally irrelevant.

We do so poorly, all in all. We can, however, attempt to align ourselves with a system which can lead to better results, which alone we've shown no propensity or capability in accomplishing, for quite a few millennia now. Leaving religious presumptions aside for a moment, a structure that could reach an objective beats a non-definition of a non-plan that never, empirically, worked anywhere as a matter of history.